DELHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a delay of 100 days in filing the Appeal. For the reasons stated in the Application, the delay in filing the Appeal is condoned. The Application stands disposed of.

(2.) THE Appeal is for reduction of compensation of Rs.11,57,000/- awarded by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal(the Claims Tribunal) for the death of Jamuna Prasad who died in a motor vehicle accident which occurred on 16.03.2000.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the Appellant has taken me through the testimony of PW2 Prakash. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he noticed the bus for the first time when it was at a distance of about 100 meters. He admitted that before crossing the road, Jamuna Prasad also noticed the bus coming from the Ghaziabad side. The learned counsel for the Appellants argues that once the deceased had noticed the bus, he should have waited for the traffic to clear before venturing to cross the road. In my view, much value cannot be attached to the extracted lines from the cross-examination of PW2. PW2 was categorical that the bus was being driven at a very high speed. The Appellant put up a case of complete denial and involvement of the bus in the accident. Mehar Singh, driver of the offending bus simply deposed that he did not cause any accident. The involvement of the DTC bus was proved by registration of criminal case in P.S. Ghaziabad vide FIR No.123 dated 16.03.2000. Simply because the driver was on duty from 6:00 am to 6:00 pm and the accident occurred at 6:45 pm, would not negate the presence of the DTC bus at the time of the accident. It has not been explained by the Appellant as to how the number of the DTC bus was noted in Ghaziabad and was mentioned in the FIR. In the absence of any evidence in rebuttal to the PW2's testimony on the driver's negligence, I would accept his testimony to reach the conclusion that the accident was caused on account of rash and negligent driving of DTC bus by its driver. The conclusion reached by the Claims Tribunal on negligence, therefore, cannot be faulted.